Saying ‘winter’ and ‘summer’ is racist, says major scientific journal
An article published last week in the scientific research journal Nature is demanding that the scientific community stop referring to seasons.
“Stop using ‘summer,’ ‘winter’ and the rest when inviting researchers to events — it’s a small step, but it’s necessary and inclusive,” Nature wrote in an X post linking to the article.
Australian climate researchers Melissa Hart and Negin Nazarian, who authored the piece, complained that inviting colleagues from other hemispheres to a “summer” or “winter” event is inconsiderate.
“Why do we, of all people, persist in relying on region-specific seasonal markers?” they asked. “What is even more baffling is that this takes place in our fields of weather and climate science, with little regard for how different things might be outside the Northern Hemisphere.”
“And it’s not just a matter of temporal accuracy — many parts of the world experience wet and dry seasons that are not reflected in distinctions between summer and winter,” they added. “And Indigenous communities often use seasonal calendars that align with their local environments, reflecting a deep connection with nature’s cycles.”
The academics are therefore asking scientists to “avoid naming seasons for events or communication.”
Scientific journals like Nature have been facing growing criticism for embracing wokeness even at the expense of truth and objectivity.
The Grievance Studies Experiment
In a famous experiment, James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian submitted 20 academic papers to several “serious” peer-reviewed journals over 12 months. The articles espoused ludicrous notions — such as “female interpretive dance” being superior to Western astronomy, which was declared sexist. Another paper focused on “canine rape culture” and suggested dogs “suffer oppression based on (perceived) gender.” Yet another paper advocated for educators to bind white students in chains, and another rewrote portions of Hitler’s Mein Kampf in feminist language. All the submissions based their conclusions on social grievances rather than objective truth.
Only six of these papers were rejected by science journals. The experiment came to be known as The Grievance Studies Affair.
Climate researcher submits flawed paper to Nature
During the COVID-19 pandemic, it became apparent that academic journals were rejecting research on COVID-19 and other topics that did not fit certain government narratives. This practice has become so well-known that many researchers who want their papers to be published omit or misrepresent data to fit an accepted political agenda.
In an article for The Free Press last year, Breakthrough Institute Climate and Energy Co-Director Patrick Brown revealed he submitted a paper to Nature that he knew was not “the full truth.”
The paper examined the link between “climate change” and wildfires that ravaged various locales such as Canada and Hawaii. While several factors contributed to the wildfires — including many reports of arson — Brown excluded them and blamed “climate change,” which he knew the editors of Nature would favor.
Brown added that science journal editors “have made it abundantly clear” that “they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives—even when those narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge for society.”
These editors wield major influence on scientific fields, he added, choosing submissions at their discretion and publishing them as supposedly quality science.
“Savvy researchers tailor their studies to maximize the likelihood that their work is accepted. I know this because I am one of them.”
Aside from omitting contributing factors to wildfires like arson and forest management practices, Brown’s paper also selected metrics the authors knew would be most sensational, even if they were not the most intuitive metrics. For example, instead of focusing on how many more acres of land are damaged by “climate change,” the author wrote that wildfires have burned over 10,000 acres in a single day.
In reality, wildfires are declining, as noted by Canada’s own Canadian National Fire Database (CNFDB). Climate deaths have also been decreasing, Brown acknowledges, while crop yields have been increasing. Nevertheless, climate “scientists” continue to insist in their academic papers that “climate change” is evident in climate deaths and agricultural damage.
